Comments on: Ghoulish http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/2008/07/19/ghoulish/ News, Commentary, and What to Watch on WashingtonWatch.com Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:56:16 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Mom http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/2008/07/19/ghoulish/comment-page-1/#comment-224 Mom Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:32:30 +0000 http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/?p=95#comment-224 I believe this is very necessary legislation. The current code qualifies a child born at 11:59 on December 31st for the entire year as well as "a child who was born alive during the year, even if the child lived only for a moment". This same publication (501) in the next paragraph specifically excludes stillborn children as dependents. In both of the preceding situations, there is not a dime more spent by the parents (either in money or emotion) than by the parent who loses their child in the birthing process. Regarding the deductible expenses - there are many restrictions on these deductions if your covered b insurance - and again - these are the same expenses as a child who is born alive. re: the "goulish" part, the code above covers death of the infant already - it's just a matter of geography of whether the child dies in the room, or the womb. Regarding the baby vs fetus - I challenge you to find even 1 mother who has ever cried for days over losing her "fetus" in delivery. This is a baby, no question about it. The legislation is written well to combat exactly that issue and not erode at the all sacred Roe v Wade. All this legislation does is recognize that the parents of this child are in fact parents of an actual child and are in need of the same financial consideration as all parents of all children. I believe this is very necessary legislation. The current code qualifies a child born at 11:59 on December 31st for the entire year as well as “a child who was born alive during the year, even if the child lived only for a moment”. This same publication (501) in the next paragraph specifically excludes stillborn children as dependents. In both of the preceding situations, there is not a dime more spent by the parents (either in money or emotion) than by the parent who loses their child in the birthing process. Regarding the deductible expenses – there are many restrictions on these deductions if your covered b insurance – and again – these are the same expenses as a child who is born alive. re: the “goulish” part, the code above covers death of the infant already – it’s just a matter of geography of whether the child dies in the room, or the womb. Regarding the baby vs fetus – I challenge you to find even 1 mother who has ever cried for days over losing her “fetus” in delivery. This is a baby, no question about it. The legislation is written well to combat exactly that issue and not erode at the all sacred Roe v Wade. All this legislation does is recognize that the parents of this child are in fact parents of an actual child and are in need of the same financial consideration as all parents of all children.

]]> By: KipEsquire http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/2008/07/19/ghoulish/comment-page-1/#comment-50 KipEsquire Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:00:31 +0000 http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/?p=95#comment-50 The "expenses" would of course qualify as deductible medical expenses anyway, so the economic argument is invalid. But we all know dang well what this really is -- a stunt by the pro-life movement to chip away at the preceived line between "fetus" and "baby." The sponsor, Alaska porkmeister Don Young, is among the most radical pro-life members of Congress. The “expenses” would of course qualify as deductible medical expenses anyway, so the economic argument is invalid.

But we all know dang well what this really is — a stunt by the pro-life movement to chip away at the preceived line between “fetus” and “baby.” The sponsor, Alaska porkmeister Don Young, is among the most radical pro-life members of Congress.

]]>